I think the probability is high that it will die or is already dead. No one at Sun is working on Java3D currently. It's still a robust API, which can be used for lots of purposes, but for good games you must be able to use new features. For most people Xith3D will be an alternative, which is faster and actively developed. It also has the advantage of being open-source, which is a strong argument for many developers, especially after the (possible) death of Java3D. I'm not sure if the availibility of the Mac-port changes anything about the future of Java3D.

Let me quote the community site j3d.org:

Quote

27 July

The final two developers working on Java3D have been sacked by Sun. That means there is no official support coming from them, and obviously no further development. At this point Java3D is effectively dead, unless the various community efforts can convince Sun to release all or part of the source. We're keeping track of the various efforts with replacement scene graphs and also expect to see further announcements from us too with respect to where the site is going in the future.

There's a lot of ways of talking about the 'future'. Forexample, it's interesting to ask:

"Does the scene graph approach to 3D programming have a future?"

Another variant of the question is: "Do the ideas used in Java 3D have a future?"

How about: "Does Java 3D have a future as a teaching tool?"

How about: "When learning 3D programming techniques, is it better to use a stable, well documented package, with many users, or a very interesting prototype which is being actively developed as we speak?"

How about: "When we have conflicting reports about a package, one by the software's developer, one by the FAQ maintainer, who do we believe?"

There's a lot of ways of talking about the 'future'. Forexample, it's interesting to ask:

"Does the scene graph approach to 3D programming have a future?"

Another variant of the question is: "Do the ideas used in Java 3D have a future?"

How about: "Does Java 3D have a future as a teaching tool?"

How about: "When learning 3D programming techniques, is it better to use a stable, well documented package, with many users, or a very interesting prototype which is being actively developed as we speak?"

How about: "When we have conflicting reports about a package, one by the software's developer, one by the FAQ maintainer, who do we believe?"

- Andrew

Definitally "Yes" to the first two.

Your points regarding learning and documentation are very valid and Java3D excells over Xith3D there (but we're working on it - the GSG is now almost 80 pages). But the other nice thing about Xith3D from a teaching and learning perspective is that you can open the hood and see what makes it ticks since it's open source - and even participate in the development.

Another question is:

How do we guarantee the survival of a scenegraph?

Open source is one answer to this as if development stops there is a change for other people to step in and take over where the previous developers left off.

Sure. I personally am in the situation that I HAVE a Java3D game and need to decide wether to port somewhere else or not.

But the poll doesn't help me at all! Even if 100% vote for 'Sun will continue' ..... tomorrow they could announce it's dead.

Of course nobody can vote about the truth in a way "Do you think the truth is true or not?". ;-) (Well, actually this is done all day but it's nonsense, I agree)

However apparently it's not clear to the users (read 3d developers using Java) whether Java3d is alive or not.So: has the truth about Java3d been said to the users in a clear way? (Please remember that SUN's Java3d WWW page has been one of the last sources to tell that there's a Macos-X port of Java3d... looks like the Java3d site admins are uninformed, too.)

So I suggest to take the poll as a hint whether Java developers (tending to know SUN from a developer's point of view) trust SUN to keep Java3d alive or not.

Well a fork is a very good tool to eat spagethi but not soup. Java3d is very good for education purposes and if people dont have big demands for their games it can be nice too.

But look at things this way, if you want to develop a game with fair graphics for today standards then you will require some help from artists and musiciens. These guys use programs like 3dstudio and maya and music programs that export to midi or mp3. I cant say i have seen such good import utilities in java3d for 3dstudio or maya 3d formats.

There are some fair alternatives like java opengl or java openal but we can't join java3d benefits with the flexibility of those apis. People cant create or modify the c++ bridge that comunicates with the lower level apis like opengl or directx to customize its own version of java3d with it.

Java3d is a very monolitic api at the lower level and that was probably the biggest mistake the java3d developers made. Being extremely flexible is a primary requirement for an api to be used in graphical intensive computer games development. Even more important than good and clean code or excelent documentation.

Im afraid that Sun has to concern themselfs with market share. Making an api that is good for teaching purposes means less bucks than making one with which computer game programers can make visually stunning games.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org